Oasis,

Isn't the non bus pilot argument that moving bits are needed to show both pilots what is happening? That did not occur in the Flash airlines, Ethiopian, Turkish nor Asiana Boeing crashes. If the yoke or thrust levers move or not makes no difference if you aren't a very good pilot. One needs to be able assess what is happening, and decide what needs to be done. This is the factor that is common in both Airbus and Boeing accidents.
Pilots aren't trained to do pilot stuff anymore. CBT teaches systems, line training makes sure you are safe in normal Ops. SIM Training is to the lowest legal requirements. Pilots don't gain experience outside of airlines anymore. The profession has been dumbed down, and the result is that when things go slightly wrong successful outcomes are no longer predictable. This crew would have splashed a Boeing if they were sitting in one.

A vs BS
 

While during my years of flying Airbus I indeed found that the non-moving thrust levers and the non-linked sidesticks did introduce a layer of opacity (and potential source of confusion) to operations, the bottom line is that Donpizmeov is spot on: when the chips are down a well-trained and experienced crew will probably save the day on either product A or B, a poor one will become a statistic.

Our profession is being dumbed down by beancounters who chillingly factor in the cost of a hull loss vs. the cost of proper training or the cost of hiring experienced pilots.

Whichever aircraft is better, and i have a fair bit of time on both Boeings and Airbus, the crux of this is the pure inability to fly straight and level…..which on an airbus, when the AP disconnects, requires you to do absolutely F*** all but sit there, loosely cover the sidestick and move nothing in the short term.